I would assume that if you still shopped there you are either a staunch Republican or a Racist/Bigot. That is who they are advertising to. If you did want to buy a gun from them I'm sure the money would outweigh their convictions. Or maybe you could talk them into it based on the notion that every gun sold is a win for the 2nd amendment in their minds.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment may be outdated and that slogans like "Guns Don't Kill people, People Do" are ridiculous (People DO USE guns to kill people more efficiently). What do you think would happen if you repealed it? Besides the obvious logic that this would only leave firearms in the hands of criminals (who don't care about the law) or the "Authorities" (who may not always have your best interest in mind). Would you take away the military's arms? Who would collect and destroy all the guns? The current estimate in the U.S. for Civilians alone is 270,000,000. How would you stop machinists or hobbyists from manufacturing their own? How would you deal with smuggling? Should all hunters in the U.S. go back to Bows & Arrows or Spears? Even if you somehow got rid of guns, could you get rid of gunpowder? I'm pretty sure it is integral to many forms of construction/demolition. This is not a problem with an easy solution. Laws are only as effective as the people who enforce them.

But most people who use guns, whether for hunting or blasting their enemies in the other gang, wouldn't construct one themselves. They are used now because they are easy to get and easy to use. Yes, at first criminals would still have guns, but when the citizenry didn't have an endless supply to be stolen the number in the hands of criminals would go down. In my view it's the only way to deal with the problem.

Another idea is to put a huge tax on bullets. You could exempt those sold and used at a firing range for practice, but if it cost fifty bucks to shoot a guy, it wouldn't happen as often. In our country this may be the only way to limit them, as banning or changing the second amendment is very unlikely.

I have a few students who hunt their food, literally to eat, because of economic circumstances. Not sure what getting rid of guns would do- humans would find something else to kill each other with. By the way, above posted pic was in response to store owner's sign.

I am all for guns being gone! But dont see it ever happening. I have heard the solution of making bullets hard to get and very expensive. That is an option that could work. You can pull the trigger but if a bullet cost $1,000 people may not pull the trigger????

Chris Rock is always Hilarious
In the world of capitalism/economics making a commodity illegal or limited doesn't make it go away, it creates a Black Market. It takes a fair amount of knowledge and skill to be a chemist and there are obviously plenty of them in business creating illegal drugs, why would we assume it would be different for guns? Everyone would have to agree at the same time that we didn't need them anymore. That is just not likely, people want to feel safe and there is not enough trust in the world for that unfortunately.
While all things eventually find their equilibrium, industrialized production has pushed the balance pretty far. I doubt you could totally eliminate them at this point, at the very least we would still want our military to have them. But how comfortable would we be if only the government had guns? Another idea is to require every gun owner to have a liability insurance policy and periodic renewals and inspections just like owning/driving a car, but that still wont address the criminal element.
The thing I find interesting is that firearms are a bit of a scapegoat. But maybe if we could get rid of them then we would have no excuse for not dealing with societal problems like lack of education & poverty which are the true underlying issues.

you have to purchase the weapons from people if you are going to put more restrictions on them. Old guns need to be gone. Perhaps offer taxbreaks for turning them in. Add it to the massive health care overhaul. The two are directly related. When I take my little one's in to see the doc he always tells us..."make sure that anywhere your kids are if there are guns they are put away and locked. There is more likely to be a gun in a home then a bicycle in Oregon."....Wild West fi REAL!

Meanwhile...why do we have the "right to hold heat"? Is it not to make sure that is the government decides to turn on the people the people and their militia's will be armed and ready to counteract? IF so then this is pointless. The FEDERAL governement can get anyone it wishes to. You can no more defend yourself against elite US military personel with a gun then you could with a flower. Your gun has a range of couple hundred yards well theirs can travel several thousand and can see the color of your eyes. In other words the scales have already been tilted so far the initial reason for the right to have weapons is gone. Keep in mind I am not talking about hunting rifles or even certain hand guns. I am talking about military grade weapons that I could have in my hand by the weekend if not sooner. The only people being killed by US guns are US citizens. When has the solution to violence ever been "well if only there were more guns".

Besides, its not the military that will come for you, it is the federal law dogs that will come to getcha -- backed by a phalanx of pinstriped DOJ lawyers who enforce laws such as the Patriot Act that erode our rights.

So the scenario that the "military" will come to your house in the dead of night and take your guns is straight nonsense. That will never happen. Primarily because of the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes such acts illegal, but also because members of the armed services are citizens themselves and would probably mutiny. Of course, there are exceptions - the Navy and Marines are not covered by the Act; neither is the Coast Guard. National Guard units are also exempt I believe.